Barrel Racing / Horses in Action

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Debra,

Could you edit the above post and number all the shots please?
(make it obvious which number belongs to which shot, as I did in your first post in this thread)

If they're numbered, it is more likely to encourage feedback, because we can reference to a specific one very easily, whereas now, we'd have to try to describe the horse, rider and their apparel so you might know which one is being discussed.

Thanks, Dave

PS, while you're editing, you could remove the extra sets of [ IMG ] tags that have appeared

[DebraM63]

Hi -

Just fixed everything.

Thanks!

Debra

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Debra,

Just fixed everything.

Indeed you have, thanks.

Across the series; your exposures are very good, I'm sure this must have been a combination of in camera and PP, particularly the latter to allow us to see detail in the rider's faces.

WB is also good throughout, but with a white reference in every shot, I'd be disappointed if they were not

I couldn't extract any EXIF data, so I have no idea what shutter speed, aperture and iso you were using.

Probably the two most significant issues I see (and I am being super-critical to explore something that might be useful for you) are noise in the shadows and motion blur, plus perhaps even camera shake in some. This makes me wonder, after the polariser (or ND), what these ended up at? Could you advise for #6 please?

Obviously you are at the mercy of the backgrounds that are at the venue and although these are bright, at least they are neutral, they could have been much worse.

Shot timings all look OK on these, it pays to have some variability, if they were all exactly the same, it would be a very boring series.

Cheers, Dave

[DebraM63]

Hi Debra,



Indeed you have, thanks.

Across the series; your exposures are very good, I'm sure this must have been a combination of in camera and PP, particularly the latter to allow us to see detail in the rider's faces.

WB is also good throughout, but with a white reference in every shot, I'd be disappointed if they were not

I couldn't extract any EXIF data, so I have no idea what shutter speed, aperture and iso you were using.

Probably the two most significant issues I see (and I am being super-critical to explore something that might be useful for you) are noise in the shadows and motion blur, plus perhaps even camera shake in some. This makes me wonder, after the polariser (or ND), what these ended up at? Could you advise for #6 please?

Obviously you are at the mercy of the backgrounds that are at the venue and although these are bright, at least they are neutral, they could have been much worse.

Shot timings all look OK on these, it pays to have some variability, if they were all exactly the same, it would be a very boring series.

Cheers, Dave

Hi Dave:

Thank you very much for the input! I had experimented with different settings through the day but for all of these photos and the ones posted on my website, I was in manual mode at ISO 500, Shutter speed 640 and F stop varied with the zoom though it seemed to be pretty consistent at F6.3 at 200mm. I settled on the CP filter and I used a monopod. Photo #6 was at F6.3 at 200mm. Actually #7 was the same, F6.3 at 200mm.

The lens was a great lens, but I felt like as far away as I was sitting - I had to fully zoom to get anything close to a full frame shot and I still had to crop significantly to get the "full frame" appearance to the images. I know I lost some clarity in the photos just by doing that. I was getting significant shadows in the faces and the other photographer helped me a bit with that. So after making some adjustments, the photos were maybe a little overexposed to get the shadows out of the faces (she had strobe lights to compensate for this in her shots) and then I did some editing to bring some things back with Photoshop later. I am not sure if Photoshop editing can also change the integrity of the image.

The other photographer also told me she thought that the rental lens I was using was maybe not working correctly, was slow to focus. I was trying to focus on the barrel not the rider. It was on a monopod not tripod, so there could have still been some movement on my part. I tried hand holding this lens on the first few shots of the day and that didn't work at all. Too much movement on my part.

Maybe a 400mm lens would work better if I am going to be so far away? Might as well try different equipment until I am ready to make a big purchase. My next shoot is going to be at a smaller arena along the fence at ground level. It is also going to be at a working ranch in a more natural setting. I don't think I am going to have to contend with the super bright background. I don't think I will rent a big lens for that event - for financial reasons, I have to pick and choose.

I do feel like I did learn some things from this experience. I hope I answered your questions correctly

[Dave Humphries]

Hi again Debra,

I wonder if anyone else will join our party?

I was in manual mode at ISO 500, Shutter speed 1/640 and F stop varied with the zoom though it seemed to be pretty consistent at F6.3 at 200mm. I settled on the CP filter and I used a monopod. Photo #6 was at F6.3 at 200mm.

In hindsight, I might have ditched the polariser, which would have lost you about two stops, and shot at iso 125 (or thereabouts), which should have resulted in a wider dynamic range and less noise in the shadows (when brought up in PP).

Or make it iso 200 and try 1/800s or 1/1000s for shutter speed for sharper images.

However, we learn as we practice to progress and hindsight is a wonderful thing

The monopod is probably the right way to go, although I've never shot with such a (heavy, fast) lens.

Good luck with the next shoot, Dave

Perhaps try the 100 - 400mm next time you do hire

[DebraM63]

Hi: Am making notes of this in my notebook I keep in my camera bag. The monopod helped quite a bit. The camera with that large lens felt very out of balance when trying to hold everything with just my hands. And it was a tad windy so I know I was getting movement without it.

That 100-400mm seems to be the next logical choice. I have heard it is a great wildlife lens too. The woman who was out there as the event photographer may even have a used one for sale - I think it is the older model with the push pull zoom. Just don't know if I am ready to purchase yet til I try a couple more.

Thanks as always for your advice and info!

Debra

[Dave Humphries]

That 100-400mm seems to be the next logical choice. I have heard it is a great wildlife lens too. The woman who was out there as the event photographer may even have a used one for sale - I think it is the older model with the push pull zoom. Just don't know if I am ready to purchase yet til I try a couple more.

Very wise when spending that much hard earned money.

I believe the newer Canon 100-400mm is a better lens (from what I have read here), but the downside is the additional cost.